First, let's establish what Muslims believe so that we can direct our attention to determining whether or not it is accurate, or even reasonable. As evidenced by the official Islamic introduction to the Qur'an, Islamic scholars contend: "The Qur'an is one
GOD BLESS AMERICA
attention to determining whether or not it is accurate, or even reasonable.
As evidenced by the official Islamic introduction to the Qur'an, Islamic
scholars contend: "The Qur'an is one leg of two which form the basis of
Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet. What makes the Qur'an
different from the Sunnah is its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Qur'an is
quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah
but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Qur'an has not been
expressed using any human words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by
Allah. Prophet Muhammad was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and
therefore the Qur'an is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its
predecessors, such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been
superceded." Funny thing, though, the Allah-inspired Sunnah just confirmed
that the Qur'an used "human words" and that it wasn't "fixed letter for
letter by Allah." Muslims ought to read their own scriptures.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, including their own, Islamic scholars
contend that today's Qur'an is an identical copy of Allah's Eternal Tablets,
even so far as the punctuation, titles, and divisions of chapters are
concerned. Maududi, one of the most esteemed Qur'anic scholars said, "The
Qur'an exists in its original text, without a word, syllable nor even letter
having been changed." (Towards Understanding Islam, Maududi) Abu Dhabi,
another leading Muslim said, "No other book in the world can match the
Qur'an. The astonishing fact about this Book of Allah is that it has
remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. No
variation of text can be found in it." That's factually untrue, every word
of it.
The Qur'an says of itself: "Nay this is a glorious Qur'an, (inscribed) on a
Preserved Tablet." (85:21) "A Scripture Book, whereof the verses are
explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic." (Qur'an 41:3) "We have coined for
man in this Qur'an. (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness
(therein)." (39:27) Richard Nixon tried that line too. It didn't work any
better for him than it does for Allah. Over the course of these pages you'll
discover why.
This appendix follows twenty-five chapters of Islamic scripture, all
punctuated by my analysis, so I thought you'd be best served if this section
was driven by most qualified Islamic scholars. While their findings are
shocking, don't say you weren't warned. I dedicated the opening of the
"Heart of Darkness" chapter (pages 115-8) to this very problem.
The best-researched scholastic analysis of the validity of the Qur'an and
Sunnah was presented in 1995 by Jay Smith. In his debate at Cambridge
University, he said, "Most Westerners have accepted Islamic claims at face
value. They have never had the ability to argue their veracity, because the
claims could neither be proved nor disproved, as their authority was derived
solely from the Qur'an itself. There has also been a reticence to question
the Qur'an and the prophet due to the adverse response directed upon those
who were brave enough to attempt it in the past. [Muslims kill their
critics.] So Westerners have been content to assume that Muslims have some
evidence to substantiate their beliefs." We are about to discover that they
have no such data. And what little exists serves only to destroy Islam's
credibility.
According to Wansbrough, Schacht, Rippin, Crone, and Humphreys: "Almost
universally, independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith, have
concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but
was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of
men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today
is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a
product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or
Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its
identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam
was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300
years." While these are strong words, rest assured: the scholars prove their
case.
What's interesting here is that apart from the Islamic Hadith, virtually
nothing is known about the formation of Islam and the creation of the
Qur'an. The scholars agree: "Source material for this period is sparse. The
only manuscripts available to historians are Muslim sources. What is more,
outside the Qur'an, the sources are all late. Prior to 750 A.D., and Ishaq's
Sirat Rasul Allah, we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can provide
a window into Islam's formative period. Even then, his manuscript has been
lost so we are dependent upon those who wrote fifty to one hundred years
thereafter. And no independent secular document exists with which to
corroborate any Hadith," says Smith on behalf of Crone, Humphreys, Schacht,
and Wansbrough.
"During the ninth century, Islamic sages in Baghdad attempted to describe
Islam's beginnings from their viewpoint. But much like an adult writing
about their childhood, the account is colored and biased. The picture that
Islam was fully developed religiously, politically, and legally by an
illiterate man in one of the most primitive places on earth isn't feasible,"
Smith claimed in his Cambridge debate.
Sure, Muhammad's scripture was feeble - equal parts delusional, dimwitted,
and demented, regurgitated, plagiarized, and twisted - but there was too
much of it to have been compiled and retained in the vacuum of the Hijaz.
Central Arabia wasn't part of, or even known to, the civilized world at the
time. And the Islamic Traditions themselves refer to this period as
Jahiliyyah, or Period of Ignorance, implying its backwardness. "Arabia did
not have an urbanized culture, nor could it boast of having the
sophisticated infrastructure needed to create, let alone maintain the
scenario painted by the later Traditions. There is no historical precedence
for such a scenario."
Fortunately, historical experts have recently converged on Islam. They
include: Dr. John Wansbrough of the University of London, Michael Cook,
Patricia Crone of Oxford, now lecturing at Cambridge, Yehuda Nevo from the
University of Jerusalem, Andrew Rippin from Canada, and others, including
Joseph Schacht. They sought out, examined, and probed every source
concerning the Qur'an and Sunnah to ascertain clues as to their origins.
In his debate, Smith said, "In order to critique the Qur'an we must go back
to the beginning, to the earliest sources which we have at our disposal, to
pick up clues as to its authenticity. One would assume that this should be
quite easy to do, as it is a relatively new piece of literature, having
appeared on the scene, according to Muslims, a mere '1,400 years ago.'"
However, the first century of Islam is dark, a veritable black hole from
which nothing emerges. "The primary sources which we possess are 150 to 300
years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant
from those times and characters," say Nevo, Wansbrough, and Crone. "For that
reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely
on hearsay material. The first and largest of these sources is what is
called the 'Islamic Traditions' or 'Hadith.'"
Jay Smith was kind enough to publish his research in advance of his
Cambridge debate. So as not to turn this appendix into a book, I have
elected to abridge his findings. While I have come to the same conclusions,
the words that follow are either his or quoted from cited sources. "Islamic
Traditions comprise writings which were compiled by Muslims in the late
eighth to early tenth centuries concerning what the prophet Muhammad said
and did back at the dawn of the seventh century. There is also one early
commentary on the Qur'an. These make up the sole body of material which we
have on Islam's formation. The Qur'an by itself is difficult to follow, as
it leaves readers confused while it jumps from story to story, with little
background narration or explanation. So the Traditions are critical as they
provide the context of place, circumstance, and time which otherwise would
be lost.
